Message #21

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 13:33:51 -0600 (CST)
From: james fetzer
To: research@queenbee.net
Cc: james fetzer
Subject: MEA CULPA! A Response to Martin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your following message has been delivered to the 87 members of
the list research@queenbee.net at 15:04:03 on 10 Feb 1998.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This post must begin with an abject apology, since it was my desire not
to continue this exchange. I have found that Martin is unremitting in
his assaults, however--and I never really did appreciate Ali's "rope-a-
dope" tactics, which never appealed to me--so I now return to the fray.
Most of Martin's latest (9 Feb 1998) does not bear repeating, so I will
respond (concisely) to whatever points may seem to be worth discussing.
(1) Let me say immediately that I appreciated Jack White's post of 9 Feb
and agree with ALMOST all of it, except, of course, for his depiction of
Shackelford as a "contrarian", whereas I believe he is a disinformation
agent instead. Either way, however, we should predict that many of his
assertions will turn out to be false, as in the case of his most recent.
(2) I would observe that Martin has been highly abusive toward me from
scratch. In his first post of this exchange, for example, he cleverly
implied that conclusions drawn in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE "bordered on
lunacy" without offering any supporting evidence, then he subsequently
referred to some of our work as "crap" and later described arguments I
advanced as "a slimeball approach". It was only after this that I re-
plied in kind by suggesting he was guilty of porcine algae ingestion.
(3) In this latest post, he accuses me of being "a goddamned liar". It
does not take a rocket scientist to understand that Martin is suffering
conceptual confusion: a LIAR is someone who makes an assertion that he
knows to be false with the intent to mislead others about the truth. A
person KNOWS something is false when (i) he believes it is false, (ii)
he is justified in that belief, and (iii) it is false. I BELIEVE that
Martin IS an agent of disinformation, however, and therefore cannot pos-
sibly qualify as a "liar" in this instance, much less a "goddamned" one.
(4) He also continues to use partial information out of context in his
efforts to smear me. Consider his discussion of my new web site, which
I am in the process of constructing. When he quotes from what he finds
there, IT IS THE INITIAL QUOTE THAT COMES FROM THE JACKET OF THE BOOK!
Typically, he does not explain that, nor does he describe any of the
other contents of the site. (Sure, other books of mine can be reached
from there. Actually, it might do him some good to read a few of them!)
(5) Other items found there include a summary of the contents of the book,
the contributors descriptions as found on the last two pages of the book,
the four prepublication reviews, a biographical sketch of the editor, a
description of the video, and several items concerning CASE CLOSED, such
as a letter to the editor from Gary Aguilar, an affidavit from Roger Mc-
Carthy, a review by David Wrone, and (hopefully) Mary LaFontain's radio
talk show exchange with Gerald Posner. Jan Stevens has already visited
and wants to include it in her BEST LINKS on the JFK/Deep Politics site.
(6) The charge of financial interest, of course, is a time-honored tac-
tic endorsed by the CIA. (See, for example, the advice the Agency has
disseminated to counter critics of the Warren Report found on pp. 445-
447.) Thus, one suggestion given is to attack critics as "financially
interested". All of us involved in this research have lost a good deal
of money and none of us expect to fully recover it. It would not be a
bad thing if we did, of course, but if the book is a success, most of
the proceeds are going into a non-profit foundation for the funding of
assassination research. (If Martin had asked, I would have told him!)
Jim